TERRORIST ATTACK AT FORT HOOD

The shooting at Fort Hood which left 13 dead was a terrorist attack. There is no other way to accurately describe what occurred at Fort Hood on Thursday, November 5, 2009. Information that has now come to light about the alleged shooter, U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, show that while Hasan may have been mentally unbalanced, his attack was politically motivated by his adherence to the most extreme forms of Islam.

United States Army, Major Nidal Malik Hasan was sworn to follow the oath of an officer, which reads in part, “…do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”

Hasan’s commanding officers are sworn to follow that same oath, yet as more and more information is uncovered about Hasan’s radical associations with extreme Islam, and his outrageous statements and threats against the Army and the United States of America, one has to ask the questions, “Who is in charge?” and “Who in the command structure of the Army knew of Hasan’s behavior? and “Why did those commanders forgo their oath to ‘defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic’?”

Before we conservatives go laying all of this at the feet of President Obama, it should be noted that some of Hasan’s most blatant public displays of his radical beliefs occurred as early as 2007. Sorry folks, this one isn’t just on Obama. If this is the fault of the President, then Bush has to accept blame, too.

However, it is unlikely that this ever got to the level of the Commander-In-Chief. The likelihood is that the Army either covered this up, or simply acted with complete ineptitude.

The Army also promoted Hasan, and readied him for deployment into a war zone. This knowledge prompts two more questions: Again, “Who is in charge?” and “Why does that person still have a job today?”

For those of you who wish to blame Obama for something in this horrific debacle, then blame him for his complete inability to act decisively and to lead. It seems, as it has since the beginning of his administration, that when faced with a real issue, Obama is simply paralyzed and cannot make a decision. Yesterday his staff spent the day whining about having to rearrange the President’s schedule in order to be at Fort Hood for a memorial service today, and then having to be back at Arlington for a Veteran’s Day service on Wednesday.

Beyond the whining, the primary cry spewing from the Administration is “let’s be nice to Muslims”.

The widespread horrors perpetrated against U.S. Muslims in the wake of 9-11 were as wildly exaggerated as were the horrors that hysterical reporters in New Orleans screamed into our homes via their broadcast trucks as having occurred in the Super Dome in New Orleans during Katrina. Upon actual investigation it was proved that virtually none of what was reported was accurate. Almost all of it had been pure exaggeration.

This is no exaggeration:

13 people are dead. Many others lie wounded in Texas hospitals because one man, one extremist, one follower of radical Islam, walked into a peaceful setting and blatantly opened fire upon innocent human beings.

Where is the outcry for the dead?

Where is the sympathy for their families?

Where is justice?

None of this could have occurred if the military leaders, to whom Hasan reported for the past two years, had done their jobs.

Hasan’s Past Activities:

“ABC News reports that U.S. intelligence agencies knew that the Fort Hood killer, Nidal Malik Hasan, was attempting to contact representatives of al Qaeda for at least the last several months. Hasan also attended a mosque in Falls Church, Virgina while mosque leader and radical Muslim Anwar al Awlaki served as the mosque’s imam. It is suspected that Awlaki had contact with two of the 9/11 hijackers when he was in San Diego.”

Al Awalaki, a known terrorist who was born in New Mexico and now resides in Yemen, wrote the following about Hasan on his website:

“Nidal Hassan [sic] is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear the contradiction of being a Muslim and fighting against his own people. No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can deny the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right — rather the duty — to fight against American tyranny”

From the London Telegraph: “Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.”

The Army and “U.S. intelligence agencies” knew Hasan has attempted to contact members of Al Qaeda, it was known that he attended a mosque with 9-11 attackers, and that the imam for that mosque was Anwar al Awlaki and yet, nothing was done.

According to The Washington Post, Major Nidal Malik Hasan was slated to present a speech on a medical subject while a resident at Walter Reed Medical Center (in 2007). Instead, Hasan showed a power point slide entitled “The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military” which included information about “Islam, homicide bombings and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting against other Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

From the Washington Post: “A source who attended the presentation told the paper, ‘It was really strange. The senior doctors looked really upset.’”

“’It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims,’ Hasan said in the presentation.”

Fox News Reports: “A classmate of Hasan, meanwhile, told FoxNews.com that the warning signs were all there — the justification of homicide bombings; spewing anti-American hatred; efforts to reach out to Al Qaeda — but that the military treated Hasan with kid gloves, even after giving him a poor performance review.”

So, if Hasan’s actions had been noted by Senior Doctors at Walter Reed, if his attempts to contact Al Qaeda had been noted by at least on U.S. intelligence agency, if his classmates were aware of his radical behavior, why did the Army do nothing? Why are 13 people now dead?

Senator Joe Lieberman (I) has said that he will launch an investigation into Hasan’s history, what the Army knew, and why nothing was done.

U.S. Representative Michael McCaul of the 10th Congressional District in Texas, and the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee in Congress, wrote a letter yesterday to Jane Harman, Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorist Assessment.

In part, Congressman McCaul’s letter asks that an investigation be launched into what motivated the shooting by Hasan. Specifically, “whether Mr. Hasan was motivated by outside influences including terrorist organizations.”

McCaul requests the following information to be investigated:

Who did Mr. Hasan have contact with in the months prior to the events at Fort Hood?

Was Mr. Hasan responsible for a blog post praising suicide bombers that federal law enforcement is said to have been aware of at least six months prior to the shootings?

Was the United States Army aware of any affiliations Mr. Hasan has to terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda?

Why didn’t the United States Army take personnel action against Mr. Hasan upon learning of his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Why was Mr. Hasan promoted despite his poor evaluation at Walter Reed and was his background examined thoroughly upon his promotion?

Just a few days removed from the terrorist attack upon Fort Hood, media outlets, bloggers, and the U.S. intelligence community seem to be able to find an abundance of information about Major Hasan’s beliefs. Why was none of this acted upon prior to the tragic loss of 13 lives?

Is this a case of the Army, and by extension the U.S. Government, playing political correctness with one disturbed, radical individual and choosing to “roll the dice” on this person’s future behavior and potential danger to others rather than risk being accused of insulting someone who follows Islam?

Have we genuinely reached the point of preferring not to insult someone, rather than saving lives?

Action needs to be taken. Not all followers of Islam are terrorists. We must always remember that simple truth. We also need to remember that followers of radical Islam are a danger to us all, and those in our government and military who are charged with defending us, and the Constitution, must act accordingly.